"Government, Compassion & Charity"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Government, Compassion & Charity”

January 15, 2018

“Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see.”

                                                                                                            Mark Twain (1835-1910)

Year-end is when requests arrive to support myriad causes. Some are of no interest or are fraudulent, but most are from organizations we want to help. Most of us have to make decisions, as our pockets are not bottomless. Nevertheless, the exercise is cathartic and feelings of altruism add to a sense of well-being.

For more than eighty years, safety nets have been a structural part of federal budgets. Now, they dominate spending. According to Pew Research, entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veteran’s benefits, unemployment compensation, etc., accounted for 67% of 2016’s $4 trillion budget. We are a compassionate people, and politicians are especially so when it comes to other-people’s money. The dispensing of largesse is a popular way to win votes, and nobody is more expert at this than Washington politicians. But, as Margaret Thatcher once warned, we risk running out of “other-people’s” money. Removing the cookie jar (or making it more difficult to access) – what adults must do – is unpopular. Those who have grown dependent on government – and millions have – lend credence to a modern-day interpretation of that post-World War I song: “How Ya Gonna Keep ‘em Down on the Farm (After They’ve Seen Paree?)” It is right to be compassionate. It is not charitable to foster dependency.

President George W. Bush once said, “I call my philosophy and approach compassionate conservativism. It is compassionate to actively help our fellow citizens in need. It is conservative to insist on responsibility and results.” The first part of Mr. Bush’s explanation is agreed to by all. The second is ignored.

What happens when compassion becomes charity? Government should mirror its people. But it is devoid of feeling. Its purpose and responsibility is to create, administer and adjudicate laws, ensure the rights and property of its citizens, provide defense against enemies at home and abroad, and to ease commerce via treaties and through the building and maintenance of roads, bridges, and ports. It should provide youth a basic education. It should ensure a safety net under those who because of age or infirmity are unable to care for themselves. Compassion is healthy, as it reflects the people, but federal deficits, a crumbling infrastructure and a depleted military suggest politically-motivated hearts are bigger than fiscally-responsible heads. Charity is distinct, and best left to individuals and to private, non-profit organizations.

This is not to be critical of Mr. Bush. His post-Presidency has shown him to be a decent, empathetic man, especially in his treatment of soldiers wounded in wars to which he committed them. I look at his book, Portraits of Courage, and marvel at how he captured despair and bravery, sadness and joy, grief and relief. He wrote in his introduction: “I painted these men and women as a way to honor their service to the country and to show my respect for their sacrifice and courage.” What greater devotion to his country can a former President express?

There are those who argue we are a nation of equals, and we are, before the law and in our rights as citizens. But that notion becomes convoluted by those who feel compassion requires outcomes to be equal, despite inherent and unalterable differences. We have myriad talents and aspirations. Some are more intelligent, more dedicated, with greater ambitions. Some more athletic, and others willing to work smarter and harder. A few are born with limited skills and opportunities. A free society allows people to achieve what they can, within the law and with deference to civil behavior. A compassionate society ensures that those unable to care for themselves will not be forsaken. But we should not encourage recipients of government largesse to become dependent. Throughout history, inequality becomes exaggerated during times of rapid innovation, as happened during the industrial revolution and as is happening now, with innovative new technologies. However, over time, these “creatively destructive” changes benefit all society. In the U.S., we partially compensate for different outcomes through the provision of services to aid the needy, aged, infirm, and those born with conditions that prevent the realization of dreams. We fund those costs with an income tax that is the most progressive in the world. But, we are not the same, nor can we ever be.

At his son’s graduation from the 9^th grade at Cardigan Mountain School in New Hampshire last June, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke: “From time to time, in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly, so that you will come to know the value of justice…I wish you bad luck, again from time to time, so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life, and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.” Roberts words might have been taken from the Gospel according to Luke: “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” He was right about justice and the role luck plays in our lives.

He was speaking to a people who are the most magnanimous on earth – not because of government entitlement programs, but because of the nature of its people. As a percent of national income, no nation comes close to the U.S. in the generosity of its citizens. According to the IRS, Americans gave away $373 billion in 2016, to 1.5 million registered non-profits. That amount does not include hundreds of millions in cash contributions that millions give to the homeless on city streets, or the millions placed in collection plates in houses of worship. It does not include the hundreds of millions of dollars in non-itemized donations. It does not include volunteerism, Kickstarter, or Go-Fund-Me. According to the latter’s web site, $5 billion has been raised in contributions from 50 million people. Other countries have more lavish welfare programs, but our citizens’ generosity is unique in the annals of nations. We take pride in self-sufficiency, and we recognize the dignity that is attributed to work and the independence that self-sufficiency brings. Nevertheless, in a world tilting toward selfies, the Chief Justice’s wisdom was refreshing.

A Chinese proverb that has pertinence says: “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.”  We cannot feed all in the world who are hungry. We cannot provide sanctuary for all who have been forced to emigrate. We cannot protect every person against the ravages of nature, or the bestiality of mankind. We cannot protect every forest, river and stream, nor clean up every ocean and pond. Like individuals, options must be weighed. We can help educate people. We can show the advantages of democracy and liberty through the example of our lives and our government – of how freedom, which can never be taken for granted, is illusive and worth defending. We can call out those who repress their citizens, and support those who revolt against tyranny. But we must acknowledge that behind the empathy we offer is a free people and the free-market capitalism that allows us to be charitable. We should be compassionate, but we must measure economic costs, less we become a nation and people in need.

The Left must understand that charity is individually driven, and that making people dependent is not charity. The Right must recognize that government reflects the compassion of its citizens. Both sides must realize the necessity for economic growth. Both must know where compassion ends and charity begins. In 1 Corinthians, in the King James version, the Apostle Paul speaks: “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” He wasn’t addressing the Roman Senate (or the U.S. Congress); he was speaking to the people.

.

"A Lesson in Government and Government Compassion"

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

Thought of the Day

“A Lesson in Government and Government Compassion”

August 7, 2017

“Practically all government attempts to redistribute wealth and income

tend to smother production incentives and lead toward general impoverishment.”

                                                                                    Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993)

                                                                                    American journalist of economics and business

This is a primer, written as a reminder to myself as much as for readers. With our government grown large and complex, with demands placed on it that were never envisioned by the Founders, with its purpose enshrouded in a miasma of social demands and political correctness, and with its being used by those who enrich themselves at the expense of the needy, it seemed appropriate to recall its original intent, and to acknowledge that, from a perspective of government largesse, wealth must precede compassion.

Without government, anarchy would reign, chaos would ensue and the strongest would rule. So, government is necessary for man to survive, at least civilly. The question has always been – what form of government best serves man? Winston Churchill, a sometime satirical critic of democracy (“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”), nevertheless admitted it was the best form of government yet devised. Most would agree. Additionally (and concomitantly), we should remind ourselves that private economic growth is a necessary prelude to public compassion.

Most people are, and have been, ruled by authoritarians: royalty, military or civilian dictatorships, religious leaders, a cabal of strong men, or an oligarchy of the wealthy. Examples today would include North Korea, Syria, Iran, Uganda and Venezuela. China and Russia restrict the rights of their citizens. (Incidentally, the leaders of three of those countries – Russia, North Korea and Syria – show up on a list of the world’s richest political leaders.) The origins of these governments lie in the military like Uganda, religion like Iran, or socialism like Venezuela. China and Russia came to be despotic regimes by way of revolution against imperial powers. But, unlike ours, their revolutions devolved into even harsher regimes. The consequence for their peoples: the murder of millions of their citizens, deprivation of human rights, unequal opportunities, sustained poverty, and no desire to provide adequately for their people. While both have emerged from the worst of their self-inflicted atrocities, both have recently reverted to authoritarian ways.    

In democracies, where the fortunate among us live, the essential purpose of government is twofold: To keep its citizens safe against threats from home and abroad, and to assure that its citizens’ civil rights are not abrogated. Compassion in government, a common expectancy today, can only be achieved with sustained economic growth. President George W. Bush once said, “The major role of government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States.” A belief in, and encouragement of, free market capitalism is necessary to attain the things we today want government to do: to care for the indigent, the aged, the infirm, to provide healthcare for all, to educate our youth and to protect the environment. A nation may be rich in resources, as is ours, but without the rule of law and without a legal framework that allows people to own private property those resources may sit idle. One has only to look at nations like Venezuela, Argentina, Nigeria and Rwanda – poor countries with abundant resources. A successful nation needs a freely elected government, along with men and women who are entrepreneurial, aspirant, creative and willing to take risk, those who see opportunity and exploit it. Government should act as referee: assure fairness, protect the innocent, see that laws are upheld, and prevent the willful destruction of resources for short term gain. It should not be the arbiter of who becomes successful.

To accomplish this, a successful nation must make available a basic education, and it must strive to provide equal opportunities for all. As a country becomes powerful and wealthy, demands on its resources intensify. That is unsurprising. A free and independent nation, grown rich because of adherence to the principles of free-market capitalism, can afford to be compassionate. But it must be careful lest it slay the goose that lays the golden eggs. Without wealth created through private enterprise, compassion becomes empty promises – wind puddings with air sauce, as my mother-in-law used to say.

To achieve the goal of a representative republic and to avoid the tendency of man to accrue power, the Founders established a government in which leverage was diffused – a separation of control – a legislative branch to create laws, an executive branch to implement them, and a judicial branch to adjudicate them.

As we recall that history, we should not forget what the Founders did not promise: equality of outcomes, the promotion of gender studies, health care, the protection of our rivers and forests, etc. They had little idea of the of how big, rich and complex the United States would become. They had no inkling of labor-saving devices that would be forthcoming, from cars to washing machines to telephones. They realized that people are not all the same. They knew they were not creating Nirvana, but I like to think they would approve of the charity and humanity that are central to today’s citizens and government. However, I also like to think that they believed we should live within our means, and that we should not derail the engine of economic growth, which has brought so much good to so many.

There is a reason that immigrants seek our shores – we are a land of opportunity. We are a place where hard work and ability provide awards, where gains made legally cannot be confiscated, where the right to speak out, to protest, to practice one’s religion are not inhibited, where, if accused of a crime, a jury of one’s peers determine one’s guilt or innocence, where discrimination is not absent, but not so prevalent as in those countries where it is exercised by government. The people must ensure those principles are never reneged.

As well, as charitable people we should strive to do what we can to help those in need, regardless of what government does; though our government does and should play a role. But the promise of equal outcomes is nothing more than an empty campaign pledge – a promise that what is Sally’s will be given to Harry. Such policies do not recognize inherent differences in people: Some are stronger; others are smarter. Some have high aspirations; others are content to be followers. Some work hard; others prefer personal pursuits. Some shun the material world for that of art, music or dance. Some of the most talented are willing to forego high incomes, so that they may teach others, attend their medical needs, or do research. We are a nation of doctors, plumbers, lawyers, electricians, artists, stockbrokers, storekeepers, actors and accountants. A marvel of our communities is that society’s needs get filled without government edict.

What should government do? Simplify the tax code, eliminate prohibitive regulation, reduce dependency, encourage personal responsibility, celebrate the dignity of work and motivate entrepreneurs. Let economic growth reach its potential. Let the next generations enjoy the fruits of democracy and free-market capitalism, as have we. Keep in mind, civil rights and economic freedom are inextricably entwined.

Here endeth the lesson.